Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Will California initiative decide presidential race?

By

Hertzberg also notes that this method of assigning electoral votes, even though it has superficial appeal for many over the current winner-take-all method, would actually, if adopted across the board, reduce the number of competitive districts:

Instead of ten battleground states and forty spectator states, we’d have thirty-five battleground districts and 400 spectator districts.

Note that Schwarzenegger also vetoed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, after it passed both houses of the California legislature in 2006.  The National Popular Vote solution takes a different approach to addressing the perceived unfairness of “winner take all.”  It would assign electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide, if other states agreed to do the same, ensuring that the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote also wins the electoral college.  It would also have the anticipated effect of encouraging candidates to campaign for votes even in noncompetitive states, since votes would have equal value wherever earned. (I think I read a post by someone on the National Popular Vote effort on BMG a couple of months ago, but  couldn’t find it again to link.)  There was a good presentation on the idea at the Dem. State Convention earlier this summer.

Troubling that a rules change at a low-turnout state primary election in June (California looks like it will hold its presidential primary in February) could be the balance in the presidential race.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. For anyone unhappy with our recent debate on marriage equality, look at California to see a state where the amendment process actually is bizarre.

    <

    p>
    I saw this a few days ago, and I’m less than happy about it.  If this passes, Dems stand to lose some 20 electoral votes.  I don’t see any way we can be sure of getting those back (and please, spare me ‘my candidate is guaranteed to win Ohio/Florida/North Carolina/Arkansas’)

    <

    p>
    On the happy side of things, it looks like this exact change will be implemented in North Carolina, where it has passed one House of the legislature (both houses and the governorship are Democratic). 

        • Thanks for the link.  The money quote:

          <

          p>

          House Minority Leader Paul Stam, R-Wake, estimated that Democrats could receive three of the state’s electoral votes with the new system, with close races likely in one or two other congressional districts.

          <

          p>
          This passes my smell test — while 7 of the 13 House Reps are Democrats, a few are Blue Dog Dems [Shuler, McIntyre] and the state did go to Bush 56-44 this past time around.

          <

          p>
          Still, a 3 EV pickup for the Dems is a 6 EV swing.  The Kerry-Bush gap was 34; the Gore-Bush gap was 4*.  Clearly, a 6 point swing would have won the election for Gore.

          <

          p>
          The point is: yes, even a small number of EVs really can matter, and there’s no question that presidential politics will pick up heavier in North Carolina if this initiative goes through.  Good for progressives?  You bet.  Not only will we get a few “cheapie” EVs, but it will keep NCian GOP focus local, instead of bleeding toward WV, NOVA, TN, etc.

          * really 5, since a DC electoral voter abstained to protest having no voting representation in Congress.  Ultimately, if 3 EVs from NC went to Gore in 2000 she still could have abstained without changing the outcome [Gore -5 to Gore +1].

  2. if it were implemented across many, or even all, states.  I think fewer states would be ignored as each congressional district would become worth fighting for.  Maybe not all 435, but certainly more than the battleground states.

    <

    p>
    It would also make grass roots politics MUCH more important.

    <

    p>
    I think this arrangement would better represent the interests of all Americans.

    <

    p>
    This from a conservative.

  3. Bah.

    <

    p>
    It’s bad enough that the gerrymandering results in skewing the balance in the House of Representatives.  Now, they’re going to skew EVs too?  I hope not.

    <

    p>
    Maine and Nebraska have similar systems; they also have such small population that gerrymandering isn’t as effective nor has nearly as big an impact on the presidential race [especially since the EVs haven’t been split in either of those states in the past few elections].

    <

    p>
    Funny how Republicans are proposing this in California but not Texas or Florida.

        • The state gets to decide how to allocate it’s electoral votes; if the state wants to allocate them based on the results of the national popular vote, it can.

          <

          p>
          The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact seeks to do just that, with the interim restriction that no state that enacts the law puts it into effect until a majority of America’s EVs are allocated by states in the compact.  Once states making up a majority of the US’s EVs have signed the compact, then the popular vote will determine who wins the POTUS election regardless of how the other states allocate their EVs.

          • The state legislature gets to decide how to allocate it’s electoral votes; if the state legislature wants to allocate them based on the results of the national popular vote, it can.

            <

            p>
            We almost saw that in the 2000 election in FL.  According to the US constitution, it is the state legislature that has the ultimate power in selecting electors.

            <

            p>
            It is interesting that the state governor has no say in the matter.

            <

            p>
            Sorry, missed an HTML tag.

  4. …but it is something that I toyed with 20-some-odd years ago.  If implemented nationally, I don’t know how it would play out.

    <

    p>
    The fact is that the US Constitution gives the power to select electors to the state legislatures, and the fact is that the legislators in most states have merely delegated the power to the voters.  But the ultimate power rests in the legislators.

  6. First mayhem et al, then finally hope.

    <

    p>
    If this passes — here’s hoping it doesn’t — it will be the beginning of the end of the Electoral College. It might be time for that, but I don’t think this is the way to go.

  7. California, legislatively, should pass a law that would implement exactly this kind of electoral-vote allocation as soon as 2/3 of the nation’s electoral votes are similarly allocated. Law not to go into effect until then.

    <

    p>
    Then let the Republicans explain why their referendum, which would effectively repeal the 2/3 national requirement, is better.

    • Not a bad idea, but then again I’m not sure if adding another referendum makes things clearer to the average Californian.

      <

      p>
      Strange that Schwarzeneggar has basically reputed the national Republican party, the president, and the Republicans in his own State Assembly, but nevertheless approves twisting the system for GOP gain.

      • I said “legislatively,” as in, be it enacted by the California House & Senate.

        <

        p>
        They can enact before the referendum takes place, in effect changing the meaning of the referendum (which can’t be amended by proponents).

        <

        p>
        Of course Gov. likely vetoes, in which case useful chance to bash Rs for opportunism on the whole issue and referendum in particular.

Archives